Author Topic: Another view of dog evidence  (Read 54126 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2013, 10:28:00 AM »
At CEdwards

YOuhave messed up thecoding. Those are not my words quoted.

C.Edwards

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2013, 10:29:09 AM »
So there was only one alert there that indicated cadaver rather than blood. As Keela was not deployed apparently in the other apartments or the flower bed, we can assume no cadaver odor or blood in other apartments and possibly blood or cadaver odor in the flower bed, but this is uncertain.

ONe alert indicative of cadaver odor. Dogs are between 70 and 90 per cent reliable. Mr Grime says that alerts without further forensic evidence, alerts do not confirm cadaver presence.

Yes. Tell D'Andre Lane that. Or Eugene Zapata.  I bet they felt as "relieved" as Kate McCann did when the cadaver dogs hit on the relevant places.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2013, 10:34:36 AM »

Did Keela alert- that is the important question.

CRoss contamination is a problem with fabrics. One contaminated item could contaminate others. This is a fact, not conjecture. Additionally a previous contact with a missing contaminated item could be serially transferred.

THis is one reason why Mr Grime says that alerts are meaningless unless confirmed by other forensics.



Why is it important if Keela alerted or not?  The fact that Eddie did indicates cadaver.  I don't see your point about cross contamination.  All of the clothing was the McCanns'  The cross contamination could only have come from their clothing, so unless they wanted to pin the blame on Sean or Amelie it kind of doesn't matter that all the clothing was in contact with other bits of clothing from the house.

I doubt that the PJ decided to lump in the McCann clothing with that of known dead persons, for example.



On that note - Jon Corner (in the panorama documentary) reveals the McCanns knew the pj were coming to do forensic tests. And yet they had clothing in the washing machine.  Not damning, I know, but it's just another one of those things to put in the "not exactly being helpful to the investigation" column.

How many times do I have to repeat Mr Grime's words?

Eddie reacts to Cadaver odor AND blood.

An alert from Eddie says that blood OR cadaver odor is possibly present.

Only if Keela fails to react (meaning NO BLOOD) can one suggest that it is cadaver odor.

Please confirm that you understand this or provide evidence why Mr Grime is in error.

C.Edwards

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2013, 10:39:13 AM »

Did Keela alert- that is the important question.

CRoss contamination is a problem with fabrics. One contaminated item could contaminate others. This is a fact, not conjecture. Additionally a previous contact with a missing contaminated item could be serially transferred.

THis is one reason why Mr Grime says that alerts are meaningless unless confirmed by other forensics.



Why is it important if Keela alerted or not?  The fact that Eddie did indicates cadaver.  I don't see your point about cross contamination.  All of the clothing was the McCanns'  The cross contamination could only have come from their clothing, so unless they wanted to pin the blame on Sean or Amelie it kind of doesn't matter that all the clothing was in contact with other bits of clothing from the house.

I doubt that the PJ decided to lump in the McCann clothing with that of known dead persons, for example.



On that note - Jon Corner (in the panorama documentary) reveals the McCanns knew the pj were coming to do forensic tests. And yet they had clothing in the washing machine.  Not damning, I know, but it's just another one of those things to put in the "not exactly being helpful to the investigation" column.

How many times do I have to repeat Mr Grime's words?

Eddie reacts to Cadaver odor AND blood.

An alert from Eddie says that blood OR cadaver odor is possibly present.

Only if Keela fails to react (meaning NO BLOOD) can one suggest that it is cadaver odor.

Please confirm that you understand this or provide evidence why Mr Grime is in error.

I'm failing to see your point.  Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood.  That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else.  I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.

Please confirm you understand this.

What about the cross contamination issue? Stop prevaricating over the dogs' respective capabilities.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2013, 10:42:53 AM »
As for the testing of the clothes that was the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.  For heavens sake the clothes were all packed together in a box where cross contamination was inevitable.

And to think they actually got paid a substantial fee for that effort!

Cross contamination from where? Oh yeah, McCann clothing to McCann clothing. Genius.  Did Eddie alert to all the clothing? No. 

Yeah, I know, handler cueing, right?

Did Keela alert- that is the important question.

CRoss contamination is a problem with fabrics. One contaminated item could contaminate others. This is a fact, not conjecture. Additionally a previous contact with a missing contaminated item could be serially transferred.

THis is one reason why Mr Grime says that alerts are meaningless unless confirmed by other forensics.

True. If Keela didn't alert, the molecules detected by Eddie weren't blood.
Mr Grime and Mark Harrison (who is a top guy and supervised the operation) never argued the dogs' findings were evidence. Just presumption. Nothing more.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #65 on: April 10, 2013, 10:45:11 AM »
@Cedwards

Let's do this step by step

AN alert by Eddie indicates either cadaver odor or blood.

DO you agree?

C.Edwards

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #66 on: April 10, 2013, 10:48:50 AM »
@Cedwards

Let's do this step by step

AN alert by Eddie indicates either cadaver odor or blood.

DO you agree?

No shit, Sherlock.  Check my post above:
Quote
I'm failing to see your point.  Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood.  That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else.  I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #67 on: April 10, 2013, 11:14:57 AM »
@Cedwards

Let's do this step by step

AN alert by Eddie indicates either cadaver odor or blood.

DO you agree?



No shit, Sherlock.  Check my post above:
Quote
I'm failing to see your point.  Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood.  That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else.  I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.

OK. So there was only one possible cadaver alert (unconfirmed by further forensics) around and in the apartments.

Offline Carana

Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #68 on: April 10, 2013, 11:15:21 AM »
Eddie also reacted to tissues used to clean up after sex (in the Jersey report) and Grime found this to be within the parameters of his training. I already posted the reference to this.

So unless this was a case of necrophilia, isn't "cadaver" scent a bit misleading?

To me, it would seem that he reacts to various scents involved in the biological decomposition of human (or porcine) origin.

At a potential crime scene location, an alert could, of course, be indicative of a death and therefore worth examining further. In this particular case, there was nothing to confirm exactly what he was alerting to.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #69 on: April 10, 2013, 11:33:53 AM »
@CEdwards
Eddie's alert never confirms cadaver odor.

Agree?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #70 on: April 10, 2013, 02:41:02 PM »
C Edwardes (replying to Debunker)

I'm failing to see your point.  Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood.  That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else.  I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.

Please confirm you understand this.


Going off at a relevant tangent (if you'll excuse the oxymoron) think back to the inspection of the vehicles.

In the videos before Levy started messing about with them, Grime is very clearly shown directing Eddie to the rear boot area.  Eddie squatted several seconds under the boot, got up, wandered off without alerting and was recalled once more by Grime.

Keela reacted to the boot.

So that was a reaction by the blood dog

It was a non-reaction dog by the cadaver dog.

What does that equal?

Offline Luz

Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2013, 02:42:59 PM »
Wonderful news, NOT

So the US and the UK have been sending people to prison on the account of those marvel dogs.


debunker

  • Guest
Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #72 on: April 10, 2013, 02:45:39 PM »
C Edwardes (replying to Debunker)

I'm failing to see your point.  Eddie alerts = cadaver or blood.  That Keela did not alert only confirms it was cadaver, it means nothing else.  I've stated that Eddie's alert alone means it was cadaver.

Please confirm you understand this.


Going off at a relevant tangent (if you'll excuse the oxymoron) think back to the inspection of the vehicles.

In the videos before Levy started messing about with them, Grime is very clearly shown directing Eddie to the rear boot area.  Eddie squatted several seconds under the boot, got up, wandered off without alerting and was recalled once more by Grime.


Keela reacted to the boot.

So that was a reaction by the blood dog

It was a non-reaction dog by the cadaver dog.


What does that equal?

An error

Offline Luz

Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #73 on: April 10, 2013, 02:55:21 PM »
Excuse me Mr. Administrators and Moderators,

but how the F. is it not important that 2 of the most prestigious BRITISH CSI, blood and cadaver dogs findings pointed to the existence of cadaver odour and blood in places where no one but little Madeleine could have been the victim?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The  handler, Mr. Grimes was very clear - they (doggies) signaled. The fact that we need material evidence to the Court Trial is entirely another question.

There was no f. death in that apartment since it was built until the Mccs rented it;
As far as we know, no corpse whore Ms Healys pants;
I don't think a corpse either whore the little red t-shirt;
etc, etc,..


Are we all crazy or are you trying to make us?

Offline John

Re: Another view of dog evidence
« Reply #74 on: April 10, 2013, 02:56:13 PM »
Wonderful news, NOT

So the US and the UK have been sending people to prison on the account of those marvel dogs.

No Luz, not on the evidence of the dogs alone.  There has to be corroboration of some sort usually from forensics.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.